On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But geographical labelling does, and, it does NOT need any distribution >> mechanism. > > Will say, your example doesn't manifest any problem.
Based on: http://bill.herrin.us/network/geoag.gif The path I claim your algorithm picks for packets from D to E is wrong. It subjects an unaffiliated third-party to an unbounded and unrecoverable expense. The only valid path from D to E is D-C-G-F-E. If your algorithm might pick some other path, your algorithm is broken. Period. This is your "put up or shut up" moment. If you think your algorithm picks D-C-G-F-E to get from D to E -AND- picks H-G-C-B-A to get from H to A (the only valid paths for those two communications), show us how nodes C and G over in "right area" make those polar-opposite path selections based on the aggregated knowledge that destinations A and E both reside in "left area." Or shut up about geographical routing. Give it up for bad and put your mind to task on the next possibility. Please. -Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
